I have certainly
enjoyed all of our discussions concerning Vonnegut and Cat's
Cradle thus far. However, I am
still concerned that, as we begin to write our own extended analyses
of the book, we will persist in making a particular kind of error. In
a class constructed around the examination of truth and fiction, of
lies and reality, we have made very little concentrated effort in
coming up with a working definition of any of these important terms.
Admittedly, this is not a class taught through the philosophy
department; we are here to examine these concepts within literature,
not in their own independent contexts. However, it becomes very
difficult to manage any serious literary analysis when terms like
“subjective truth” and “personal reality” are casually used
without further elucidation. In the absence of a standard definition,
the listener (or reader) must input their own, which may not be the
intended definition of the speaker. If we each are holding our own
subjective definitions of “subjective truth”, untangling the
literary knot of Cat's Cradle
will only be half the battle; the other half will be spent fighting
against our own prose.
There
are also, I think, further reasons to be wary of identifying the
subjectivity of reality itself as a primary theme behind this book.
On the surface, the term appears to nicely wrap up the smorgasbord of
lies, truths, and metatexualities contained within Cat's
Cradle, but the phrase itself is
not quite as intellectually sound as we might think. After all, when
we say that reality is subjective (in this case, meaning that each
individuals sense of qualia is no better or worse than another
person's), do we intend to make that a universally applicable
statement? Is it objectively true that all reality is subjective? We
fall into a old philosophical trap; if the statement is accepted as
true, than it follows from necessity that the statement is false.
I think it is fitting, if no less confusing, that we impose our own variations onto themes and terms like "subjective truth;" it speaks to the fact that we all view things through the context of our own experiences and perceptions, so even if we create standard definitions of the terms we use, there is no guarantee that we are all going to be on the same page. A standard definition is useful for denotation and may be useful in helping us avoid the entanglement of intellectually unsound prose. What it cannot do is control the connotations a term like "subjective truth" may have because of the extent to which connotations are colored by the listener and his or her experiences, preferences, personality, knowledge, and many other factors. To use an example: "true" is defined as "in accordance with fact; in accordance with correct principles or accepted standards; rightly said, genuuine; exact or accurate" (Oxford American Dictionary). But "in accordance with fact" is often limited by one's ken and "accordance with correct principles" is even more difficult because it raises the questions of what we determine to be 'correct' and by what standards these assumptions are made. This is not to say that we shouldn't try to elucidate the terms we use in discussion. It is merely to suggest that, regardless of whether we use standard definitions or not, we will all impose ourselves to some extent and view everything with our own perspective. However, this is not something we should shy away from. Confusion and frustration are to some extent inevitable in discussions such as these, but they can serve as motivation to be thorough, to be metacognitive in one's thinking. They can act as the catalyst for learning and intellectual exercise (or as Dr. Hoenikker would say "straining your brains"). As long as they serve as an impetus for learning and introspection into one's perspective and all the factors that contribute to that perspective, then a little ambiguity and a little subjectivity can be good things.
ReplyDelete